LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 24-25, 1981, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

2. If he is still on the teacher member roster of the Synod but is now in another District then
Bylaw 5.25e would apply.
3. If the individual is no longer on the synodical teacher roster, then the Board of Appeals could
be approached to see if there is any jurisdiction at all and if so what the procedures are.
189. Ohio District Church Extension Fund (Ag. 1433, 1504,A-Q): It was reported that there has been a
pronounced negative reaction not only from the Synod's Church Extension Fund but also from the Board
of Directors to the two opinions of the CCM regarding the Ohio District Church Extension Fund. In
plenary session the Board of Directors had approved in principle a long resolution prepared by legal
counsel including a lengthy essay preamble in which much argumentation against the CCM's position was
detailed. In an effort to avoid confrontation many discussions had been held after the Board of Directors
had delegated to its executive committee the responsibility to edit the overture which had the original title
"To Appeal CCM Opinion."
Finally, after the Executive Committee had appointed Draheim and Mueller to work together on a
positive, forward-looking overture a document was produced which in effect carries out what the CCM
suggested, namely, that the Board of Directors ask the convention to adopt clarifying Bylaws regarding
the rights of District and other corporations within the Synod to create still additional corporations.
Unfortunately, in the final moments of the Executive Committee discussion of the motion an amendment
carried to delete from the final resolved the word indicated in brackets: "That the Synod in convention
having addressed itself to those issues that were dealt with by the Commission on Constitutional Matters
in its opinion dated July 26, 1980 and its supplemental opinion dated February 19, 1981, both the opinion
and the supplemental opinion be recognized as having no [further] force or effect."
The Commission also noted that the proposed Bylaw addition, 2.77e has the language "the Board shall
approve the incorporation...," which would seem to indicate that the Board hag no alternative. It would be
better to use language such as "the approval of the Board of Directors shall be secured for the
incorporation..." or similar language. It was also pointed out that the inclusion of a proposed standard
paragraph at five different places in the Bylaws should perhaps simply be replaced with one paragraph in
the Handbook to cover all of the areas involved. (See second last resolved.)
The Commission after extensive discussion adopted the following as its position
1. The Commission is pleased to note that the Board of Directors will not challenge the opinions
of the CCM in this matter. It is confident that the convention will exercise its good judgment
regarding the merits of the proposals for governing additional corporations within the Synod.
2. The CCM will strive to reintroduce the word "further" or similar language in the last resolved
to avoid the misconception that the opinions were perhaps faulty in themselves. The
Commission continues to hold that the opinions are valid on the basis of the Bylaws presently
in effect.
3. The Commission will suggest to the floor committee that a better wording be found for
proposed 2.77e: "the Board shall approve the incorporation..."
4. It will also suggest that the standard paragraph in the second last resolved not be repeated five
times in the Handbook but be incorporated only once at an appropriate place, perhaps
immediately after proposed Bylaw 2.77e.